Talk:Blind fight
Invisible vs. concealed I think rather than "invisible", this should state "concealed". Also should be noted that this feat does not help one significantly if they are victim of darkness (they still lose their tumble bonus). -- 8 June 2006 *The official description is quite close to what is seen in game so there's no need to change it. As already noted Blind Fight helps with the reroll against the miss chance, tumble AC is almost always lost in situations where a PC is caught flat-footed (darkness is one example). There is no mention of tumble AC in the official description so this feat is working as designed, invisible creatures do not get the attack bonus from fighting a PC with blind fight and the darkness spell is independent of this feat Harleyquin 07:27, 8 June 2006 (PDT) spellcasting One thing I've never seen mentioned is that blind fight is also very useful for spell casters performing melee touch attacks such as clerics casting harm spells against concealed creatures. This feat is a must have for anyone casting spells which require that a touch be performed. -- 8 November 2006 Ranged attacks? Does the feat work with ranged (ie. missile, no fancy touches) attacks? -- 26 October 2007 *BUMP I'd like to know this too... Would this feat be useful for my Arcane Archer? Chamalscuro 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) *Yes -- 7 November 2007 Invisible creatures' bonus to hit in melee Does anyone know the bonus those normally get ? -- 11 December 2008 * +2 --The Krit 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Sneak attacks I'm a bit confused by part of the note concerning sneak attacks: "(even if the defending character was attacking a third character and was immune to flanking)." This implies that somehow being able to fight blind should help in this situation, but sneak attacks made against a defending character in combat with a third character can be made by fully-visible characters. Is this note poorly worded or is it out of place? Or am I missing something? --The Krit 15:03, October 5, 2009 (UTC) *Immune to flanking negates sneak attacks from visible flankers only. Those flanking that are not detected will always make sneak damage (unless there is immunity to sneak/crit). Visible flanking does not (on its own) catch the target flatfooted, but undetected (without blind fight) does. The attacking a third character was there to ensure that the target was not caught flatfooted from being in the ready mode (in which sneaks would apply). WhiZard 20:32, October 5, 2009 (UTC) :* So the full note — "This feat does not protect a character from sneak attacks by a hidden character (even if the defending character was attacking a third character and was immune to flanking)" — can basically be paraphrased as "This feat does not protect a character from sneak attacks by a hidden character (even if being hidden is the only reason the sneak attack was triggered in the first place)"? --The Krit 15:37, October 6, 2009 (UTC) ::* Correct WhiZard 17:39, October 6, 2009 (UTC) :::* Seems like an odd thing to emphasize. How could you have protection from sneak attacks by a hidden character if that protection did not include sneak attacks by a hidden character? The case being mentioned as special (where being hidden is the only reason a sneak attack is being triggered) is the defining case that determines if this particular protection exists, isn't it? --The Krit 03:12, October 24, 2009 (UTC) ::::* It was a description to show how an invisible sneak attack could be conducted without the flanking or flatfooted conditions. Due to this being a rare occurrence, I thought providing an example would be able to demonstrate that the condition could exist and that it was tested. In general, sneak attacks tend to either catch the target flatfooted or flank the target. WhiZard 07:10, October 24, 2009 (UTC) While revising the notes -- in particular this note about protection from sneak attacks -- I changed "hidden" to "unseen (hidden or invisible)". This is just an educated guess though. Was protection from sneak attacks by an invisible opponent tested? (And should the flat-footed note be similarly modified?) --The Krit 18:48, November 22, 2009 (UTC) Flat-footed I merged two notes, which changed a nuance that I think was probably not tested (so maybe this note will remind me to run a test later). The two notes that got merged covered the AC loss and sneak attack aspects of being flat-footed. What was not explicitly mentioned was whether or not this feat allows attacks of opportunity, defensive rolls, or deflecting arrows when attacked by an unseen melee opponent. (Well, I suppose the "melee" part implies deflecting arrows is out.) I'm guessing not, but if so, the note needs to be edited again. --The Krit 03:50, January 13, 2011 (UTC) Ranged + Invisible How about opponents that are invisible and use ranged weapons? Does the feat still prevent those from gaining bonuses to attack? From the 3E SRD: An invisible attacker gets no bonus to hit the character in melee. That is, the character doesn’t lose a Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn’t get the usual +2 bonus. The invisible attacker’s bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however. GFallen (talk) 18:18, January 2, 2013 (UTC) * Combat debugging indicates melee-only. I'll update the article. Which happens to match the feat description ("in melee"), so no need to change the article. --The Krit (talk) 16:37, January 24, 2013 (UTC)